Comments on: Middle Age Girl Power: Grave Mercy vs The Wicked and the Just

By: Kim Zarins

Kim Zarins — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 07:06:00 +0000

I just finished GILT by Katherine Longshore a couple months ago–it’s YA historical fiction set in Henry VIII’s England. Very well written–highly recommend!

By: James Cornwell

James Cornwell — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:17:24 +0000

Has anyone on this thread read any YA historical fiction they REALLY liked? Especially one with medieval or Renaissance theme? Or even one they were okay with recommending?

We’ve already found Karen Cushman’s stuff (Catherine, Called Birdy; Midwife’s Apprentice; Mathilda Bone; etc.), plus Door in the Wall, Adam of the Road, Proud Taste for Scarlet and Minniver (all REALLY OLD), Pagan’s Crusade (worst title for medieval book EVER), and the Ramsay Scallop.

We’ve written a book to fill this gap (YA, 16-yr-old boy protagonist, late 12th century setting, with fighting action, humor, and friendship themes), and would like to hear what people have to say about the topic in general… Thanks in advance! –James

By: Wendy

Wendy — Wed, 12 Dec 2012 06:09:20 +0000

This is all anecdotal, but I didn’t look anything up while reading; I might have, just out of interest, if I’d had more time that week. Like Mark, I don’t see a problem with that, and one of my general objections to author’s notes is I don’t think every question (or maybe any question) needs to be answered in an author’s note; I thought I was given all the information I needed in the text, which is where I want it, if it’s done well. But in any case, if the plot or setting is difficult to understand while reading, is an author’s note going to help with that? That’s why I prefer glossaries (if they’re going to be included) at the beginning. Many times I’ve finished a book and found the glossary and thought “that would have been helpful to know about half a book ago”.

Karyn, for the reasons you state originally, I’m inclined to trust Coats on Cecily not being anachronistic–she seems to have been right about everything else.

By: Mark Flowers

Mark Flowers — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 21:37:26 +0000

@Karyn, so I’m having some cognitive dissonance here because over on my blog, my mom (and apparently many others) are taking Libba Bray’s DIVINERS to task for spelling out too much of the historical context of the 20s for the reader, while over here you’re talking about having too little context. (I don’t mean to impugn you–or my mom–I don’t know your thoughts on DIVINERS yet, anyway, I just find it interesting to see the contrast).

In any case, I admit that I found myself reaching for wikipedia from time to time as I read the novel, but I’m not sure I can call that a flaw. If I knew less about WWII, wouldn’t I have been doing that with CNV? Or mightn’t someone who is baffled about the various types of cancer have needed to look up stuff from TFiOS? I guess the point is that it is, of course, a delicate balance, and I don’t see how any author is going to please everyone. Also, is it really such a big deal to have to fire up the computer while we’re reading? I do it all the time just for tiny details that seem interesting to me.

As for the voices, I’m not sure I understand your objection to Gwenhwyfar. It seemed to me like just a straightforward novelistic choice to me–every narrator needs a distinct voice, and that’s the one Coats chose for Gwenhwyfar. I’ve read whole novels written in styles not too far removed from that one.

I still would like to maintain that Cecily was not anachronistic, but I’d have to do a more thorough reread, and perhaps some research to back that up.

By: Karyn Silverman

Karyn Silverman — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 21:13:53 +0000

Wendy, I found the lack of glossary a problem, and lack of historical note would have been a problem, for the reasons I raised in the review — without any context, I think the struggles are very hard to understand. Taxes and money are at the heart of this conflict, but it was hard to follow, through the eyes of two limited perspective narratives, who was doing what to whom and why. The note (now that I’ve read it) and my dictionary explorations were necessary to really get some of the thematic scope. This is not a period of history I know well, and floundering for context while trying to follow the story diminished my ability to follow the story itself, much less find the deeper strands at play.

But really, my bigger issues are with Gwehwyfar’s voice, which I just don’t understand; why the fragments? Why the grammatical oddities? I see that everyone who disagrees with me is tackling my opinion on the unlikable characters, which I totally call myself on as emotional! Yes, I disliked them both, but I know that doesn’t rate, and I knew others would feel differently. The reason I think this misses the top 5 is tied up in Gwenhwyfar’s voice and Cecily’s possibly anachronistic attitudes.

By: Wendy

Wendy — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 03:24:03 +0000

Just read and enjoyed this book, and as with Mark and Jess, I find the criticisms here sort of puzzling. Not that it’s a perfect book, but it’s in my top ten, I think. That both protagonists were often unlikeable was one of its strengths, I thought. In alternating chapters, you’d be sympathizing with one character and uncomfortable with the other–and then the perspective would switch on the next page. It really created a sense of drama and uncertainty for me that matched the book’s plot and setting. It’s far more interesting that Gwenhwyfar has some truly unlikeable, almost villainous moments than if (as it would be in most books) she was just beleaguered, misunderstood, Cinderellaesque, etc. And Cecily seemed to me to be struggling with the strong, unexamined racism she had always been brought up with versus the values of justice and mercy that were also strong in her upbringing. That’s a classic teenaged struggle. Speaking of “classic”, while it was occasionally a little coy, maybe, I thought the book did a great job of suggesting ways that young women might be the same in any time and place.

I know it’s been covered now that there is an author’s note in the finished work. But why would it be a “significant lack” if there wasn’t one? This was a detailed note, and I hope it satisfied those who craved one, but I thought Coats did a better job than many of giving a lot of context within the novel itself (which I prefer to an author’s note; I think most of the time these are unnecessary at best, and weaken the book at worst, though I have found I’m in the minority there–maybe something to do with all the librarians and teachers around here). As far as I have found, author’s notes on historical fiction are quite a recent invention, especially lengthy notes of the kind that seem to be de rigueur lately. Of course that doesn’t mean they’re automatically bad, but I do kind of wonder why what seems to me to be an invented need has become so ubiquitous. I would have been more pleased to see a glossary than an author’s note, but I was okay in this case with the words I didn’t know and figuring them out (probably incorrectly) from context clues, but I know that isn’t comfortable or desirable for everybody. (It sometimes isn’t for me, either.)

Overall: a great example of… high historical fiction (akin to high fantasy). I thought it was kind of like The Witch of Blackbird Pond. Granted, it lacks that book’s subtlety, but shares a kind of believability in the human relations, and a setting you can practically smell.

By: Kim Zarins

Kim Zarins — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 19:26:57 +0000

Nice article! I haven’t read either book, but “assassin nuns” has a great ring to it! For the record, medieval people did have cats as pets (see, for example, the 15th century French text, The Distaff Gospels, for references of how to use pet cats in homebrew magical remedies), but a spinster was someone who did spinning with a distaff (i.e., no negative connotations that have to do with being unmarried). Not sure they had “old maid” as a term, and if they did, I’m not sure it would be pejorative, especially if you had the means to support yourself. I’m a medievalist and children’s lit author and enthusiast, and I love it when my two interests are combined into one, so your article brightened my day! Thanks for writing about these books.

By: Jess

Jess — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 23:25:12 +0000

The Wicked and the Just is pretty high up on my personal list. I think the unlikeable characters are something that would deter readers but doesn’t seem to factor into the criteria, and I did find them to be more likeable as the story went on. I don’t think it’s as distinguished as Code Name Verity or Seraphina, but I think it’s got a shot.

By: Laura Canon

Laura Canon — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 22:49:51 +0000

Yes, but she is also going against what her community and family think of as right and wrong, e.g. “who cares about the Welsh, they’re all barbarians.” Where she got that kind of moral courage is never explained, it’s just assumed she has it. Mind you, when I was reading the book I accepted it because it was one of the few likeable things about the character — otherwise I might have just put the book down.
My copy, from the library, had a historical note.

By: Mark Flowers

Mark Flowers — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 18:28:05 +0000

@Laura – but isn’t that a much more realistic character? In fact, isn’t that how we *all* are? – we what to do the right thing, even believe we are doing the right thing, only to find out that often we fall short or are doing exactly the wrong thing. Or maybe I’ve just revealed too much about myself . . .